- And this blank page where my fingers move
- Pennsylvania Hunger Games Diet: Cash for Corporations, Cuts for Kids
- The Incredible Shrinking Mayor
- Multi-tasking with the 1% … killing the schools AND making the poor pay for their funeral.
- Council Can Give the SRC the Money to NOT Privatize the System
- Predatory Payday Lending Bill Flies Out of Cramped PA House Committee
- Let the Games Begin: PA Senate Announces Details of Budget Proposal
- Good News on PA Revenue But Don’t Count Your Blessings Just Yet
- Defeat Corbett
- Set off without a Paddle: Unpacking the School District’s Disaster Capitalism
A Conversation with David Oh
Submitted by mdcphilly on Thu, 10/11/2007 - 9:42am.
I had the opportunity to sit down with David Oh late last night and talk for over an hour about the ideas underlying his bid for City Council. While as previously noted, Mr. Oh will not be endorsed by YPP, I thought he was worth interviewing because he is participating in one of the few competitive races. In the interest of equal opportunity, if any other City Council At-Large candidates would like to be interviewed, please feel free to contact me and we will see what we can arrange or go ahead and post answers to my questions on your own.
As a word to the warning, the entire interview is paraphrased—in some case I boiled ten minutes down to a sentence or two. Mr. Oh was extremely personable as was Michael Reid, his campaign manager. Mr. Oh and I disagreed on a number of issues—but he was straight forward and defended his positions.
Mike Cunningham: Why City Council?
David Oh: City Council is where it’s possible to have the greatest impact on the many quality of life issues that affect Philadelphia neighborhoods.
I grew up at 58th and Baltimore in a poor neighborhood and attended a public school that was primarily African American. I know the problems this city faces and that people need jobs.
The Republican Party in this town is essentially controlled by Democrats. Candidates are handed picked by the typical power brokers including Bob Brady, John Street and John Dougherty. This means that traditionally, the Republicans on Council have been loyal to those who put them in office rather than voters. Frank Rizzo, Jr. is an exception to this in some ways since he has his name. There is some evidence that Street and others tactically approved Jack Kelly’s candidacy.
A vote for me is a vote for an independent voice rather than for the political party establishment. I have a diverse group of supporters and a track record of supporting independent candidates. I’m a long time supporter of Bob Casey.
Mike Cunningham: In order to give readers some background, what kind of legal work have you done?
David Oh: Civil litigation, employee benefits, criminal defense and immigration. When I returned for the military, for a year, I basically volunteered serving immigrants in Chinatown. In particular, I worked on a lot of domestic violence cases. I was able to do this because of my military stipend but mostly because a lot of friends who were lawyers invited me to dinner and brought me lunch frequently during the year. Later I worked as an Assistant DA under Rendell.
Michael Cunningham: Assuming you win this race and you could cherry pick one issue to gain a legislative victory in your first year in office, what issue would it concern?
David Oh: That’s how City Council currently works and it’s a problem. Everyone picks three or four issues and talks to everyone else to figure out what horse trading needs to occur for votes on particular issues to occur. As a result, important issues where there is disagreement are not addressed. The need to build the Youth Study Center in West Philly as a result of the Barnes Museum move is the perfect example. Due to the tradition of Council Prerogative, no one has introduced the bill so that no Council members are forced to explain their feelings about the issue. As a result there is a lack of accountability. Instead of explaining to city and district residents whether individual Council members are for or against particular legislation, important issues are kept out of the lime light.
I’m not going to operate on Council like that. The first thing I’m going to do on Council, for instance, is introduce the Youth Study Center bill. I’m not saying I want to upset the apple cart or get the rest of Council upset about my legislation but I’m going to make sure that issues that need to be addressed from School District reform, to dredging the Delaware, to casinos and everything else that needs to get put on the table, actually gets put on the table. Even in instances where Council may not have direct control over the issues, it needs to be debating and supporting legislation that affects Philadelphia rather than displaying little leadership. Having everyone at logger heads with no movement forward is unacceptable.
As a City Council person, I’m going to propose legislation on a number of important projects because someone in this city needs to get the discussion started. The Mayor is not necessarily the most important person in this town. Effective change begins with catalysts on Council. Even if people disagree with me, at least then we can have an open discussion.
Michael Cunningham: What is the role of City Council with respect to zoning reform?
David Oh: The way the system works now is that for any project to occur, every developer must go to their district City Council representative due to Council Prerogative and zoning reform will reduce the need to do this.
In addition, I think that the Zoning Board must have Council or small districts subgroups so that decisions are made closer to the neighborhood level. In particular, zoning hearings must be held out in neighborhoods and community input must be gathered on projects.
Michael Cunningham: How do you feel about Darryl Clarke’s inclusionary housing bill?
David Oh: I don’t know enough about Darryl Clarke’s inclusionary housing bill but generally, I’m opposed to inclusionary housing.
PHA essentially builds expensive housing for poor people that displaces lots of folks. I’m not in favor of having developers have to create moderate and low income housing. There are lots of ways for the City to benefit from new development that allows the city to build parks and improve existing neighborhoods without putting additional burdens on developers.
Michael Cunningham: How can we confront the single most intransient issue that Philadelphia faces if we don’t have a plan to promote economically diverse neighborhoods? What amount of investment in the school system will make a difference if we live in separate and inherently unequal communities? I admit that the inclusionary housing bill is imperfect but at least it’s a plan. Neighborhoods with a middle class have role models and stronger social networks. In 30 years, it looks as if gentrification with extend up Broad Street to Temple, and to Fairhill and in West Philly out to University of the Sciences. How can we take advantage of new wealthier residents to create mixed income communities?
David Oh: I don’t believe that we should be telling poor people that they have to be living next to rich people.
Actually this resulted in a somewhat heated and lengthy detouring discussion that is too complicated to convey here. Needless to say, I think David and I had some serious disagreement on this point and in some ways were thinking about the issue in slightly different ways. In particular, I think our time horizons were disparate. Still, it was clear to me that David needs to do some homework on inclusionary housing. I wanted to ask him his opinion of the pending full market valuation on real estate but got distracted and moved to the next issue.
Michael Cunningham: There are rumors of racial tension in the police department. What would you do and how should this be handled?
David Oh: The primary problem with the Police Department is low morale. While starting salaries are equivalent to those in the townships (burbs), salaries up the ladder are less than in the townships and the truth is that Philadelphia police officers need to be making more money. In addition, the police need to coordinate with the criminal justice system so that they see the results of their work.
The racial tension is because historically, the department was primarily white. In recent years, affirmative action has opened up the department but some contend that has resulted in the department having lower standards. On the one side there is the perception that the department has not promoted individuals as per their qualifications and on the other side there is the perception that the system is cooked and unfair. There is no doubt that whatever the resolution, standards need to be higher for our police department.
Michael Cunningham: Given, the upcoming union negotiations and the city’s budget crunch, how can we afford higher salaries?
David Oh: You raise a good point. The pension for city employees is only 53% funded and it is truly a difficult issue.
Michael Cunningham: Over the summer, the Chamber of Commerce instituted an internship program for young adolescents. What kind of pressure should our political leaders put on businesses to hire interns?
David Oh: I don’t think that political leaders who are in a city that asks businesses to deal with high taxes, crime, crummy services and the normal challenges of staying in business can reasonably ask business leaders to hire interns. If the interns are low paid, there is the risk that regular employees will be furloughed.
I want to concentrate on big projects that will create jobs for Philadelphians such as dredging the Delaware and getting a High Speed line in the City and attracting the film industry by having the proper incentives such as creating a wage tax break for film projects.
Michael Cunningham: So you think that giving a particular industry a better tax break is okay?
David Oh: Yes, if it creates jobs and tax revenues that aren’t here now.
Michael Cunningham: What do you think about the fact that the Port loses $5 million dollars a year?
David Oh: I don’t know the details as far as that goes. But the Port provides jobs directly for 10,000 or 12,000 individuals. Considering all of the spillover effects, that $5 million is not necessarily a bad investment. Public entities like Septa are public goods. Subsidizing the public schools and Septa is a necessary public service.
I had a few more questions about community policing, the Parking Authority, and other items but I decided to wrap it up here.
Michael Cunningham: What is your five or ten year plan assuming you get this job on City Council?
David Oh: I will run for Mayor.
Michael Cunningham: Isn’t that a bold statement?
David Oh: No, we need to have high expectations in this City. If we are successful… if Maria Quinones Sanchez turns around her neighborhood…if we have big projects that we have accomplished, we need to build on the momentum. I or one of my colleagues needs to step up and offer leadership. I wouldn’t tell someone that I want to run a mediocre law firm. I don’t want leaders who aren’t looking to move on and up to bigger and better undertakings. It’s not arrogance. Elected officials need to have the confidence that they can set their sights high. I’m not running for my own personal self gratification. I’m running because I love this city and I believe that I can help people.
I’m not going to sit here and tell you gave me a good interview or tell you that all of your ideas are good ones if they aren’t. On Council, I’m going to be honest and cut out the BS. I may not be the best politician in terms of making sure I get re-elected but I’m going to study the issues. I’m going to listen. I’m going to consider your ideas and maybe in six months time, I’ll agree with some of them. As a member of City Council, I’m going to make my point and work tirelessly because I will have a great opportunity and the power to do good.
Oh, What a Progressive
I couldn't resist.
So, my man David Oh, (who, despite his talking about Casey, advocated for Santorum), is against inclusionary zoning, because developers are too stressed as it is? Yeah, I think the condo boom has really shown that. In fact, just last week I saw the developer of the Murano in tears, thinking about his rough go in life.
And, he is for tax breaks for businesses, but against getting those businesses to hire interns from the City? Nicccce.
Also, he does not "believe that we should be telling poor people that they have to be living next to rich people." Profound.
I want to like Oh. But, after hearing him a little bit, I don't think he is a particularly good choice for Council, at all. So, while I think there would be some benefit to someone coming in and trying to make headway with things like 'the Council Prerogative,' he is not getting my vote.
Mike, I would love to read
Mike, I would love to read the omitted section in the middle -- the long, convoluted debate about inclusionary zoning/housing. I think it would be revealing.
Also, props for the ambition, but it's weird that he just says "in five-ten years, I'm running for mayor." This coming after he says that he really wants to be on city council, because it has the greatest impact on the lives of people in Philadelphia. In general, I dislike it when politicians seem to see their office just as a springboard for something else.
It may good for an at-large councilman from the opposition party to pick a few fights -- and they may be good fights -- but not if the point is to attract a lot of attention to himself, so he can mount a mayoral or congressional bid down the road.
--Tim
Worth considering
So it's Oh or Jack Kelly, right?
Both parties nominate five At Large candidates, but the Democrats get five seats (so all their candidates get in) and the Republicans get two, so just their top two vote-getters get in.
There are still enough of my Italian brethren (and fans of his late father) to guarantee a seat for Franny Rizzo. No comment.
On my scorecard, that leaves the last musical Republican Council chair to be fought over between Jack Kelly and David Oh (the other two Republicans are just not mounting large enough campaigns to make them serous candidates).
Not exactly a battle of the Progressive titans.
Kudos all around for letting us know Oh's wrong about inclusionary housing.
But do we have the luxury of choosing a Republican At Large councilperson based on his/her position on that? I ventured over to Jack Kelly's website (not really worth a link) and discovered zero about how Council's Friend of the Goose falls on that issue.
I'll be honest: I have been less than impressed by Oh as well (sorry David), but am still considering voting for him because I think he'd be a catalyst for investment in the arts in the city (he ALWAYS talks about it when I hear him speak, and he does a little with Mike), and that's something I think we're in need of after eight years of Frowning John Street.
But that, his being outside his party's establishment, and his ethnicity (diversity in a legislative body = good) are all I've got re: a pro-Oh argument.
Does anyone else have better arguments? Anybody wanna defend Kelly?
We can choose to stay out of this one, but ostriches (like geese) are not very democratic birds.
Sam- honest question: If
Sam- honest question: If you could, and there was nothing going on the Dem primary, would you vote in a GOP primary?
Thinking about the Council Presidency
I'm not defending David here with this particular comment.
What I'll note, however, is that for the past eight years there has generally been pro and anti-Street fractions on Council. The Street fraction backed Blackwell for City Council. John Street has done some good things for this city. Nonetheless, his crowd generally consists of a lot of folks who are stuck in the mud.
Do I think that there is a better chance that Marian Tasco would be Council President if David Oh is elected? Absolutely.
Is it in Philly's self-interest for David Oh to win? Probably.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Maybe- but- there is no
Maybe- but- there is no question that Kelly is trying to hitch his ride to Nutter. So, given that you are a Nutter fan...
I don't think that inclusionary zoning is the magical solution to all that ails Philly. But, it is something that every progressive and labor group in the City united on. Seems pretty weird for him to not only be wrong on the issue, but as Jennifer points out, to show a bizarre perspective to the whole thing.
Grace Kelley
To be really honest I don't know that much about Jack Kelley, other than that lots of people probably think he's related to John B. Kelley of regatta and Monaco fame. It's unfortunate how much a name brand means in this town and elsewhere.
I'll take some new blood.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Fair question. Honest answer: I have.
When I first moved back to Philly, I just turned 18 in time to vote in the city primaries when Frank Rizzo was trying to get back into politics as a Republican.
I really, really disliked the senior Rizzo because he was so racially divisive. He brought out the worst in people I knew, members of my own family. I just hated the idea that this guy was going to come back and fan the destructive flames of white racism just when the city was still reeling from the after-shock and earned international embarrassment of the MOVE incident.
So even though there WAS something going on in the Democratic primary, Wilson Goode versus Ed Rendell, I chose to register Republican and vote against Rizzo. I volunteered for Ed, but I voted for whoever ran against Rizzo (Joe Egan, I think?).
RE: Republican At Large races, I pretty much always vote in them in November.
I pretty much always vote in every competitive race I can vote in, for one reason: I'd rather it was I making the choice than (exclusively) somebody else. Voting is that little bit of power democracy affords us when we live in a community among a lot of people. I figure SOMEONE is going to get in, and better that I help choose the person who is wrong on rich-poor issues and right on funding the arts (say), rather than the person who is wrong on both. On a very basic, legislative, level that's how smaller good things, liking funding the arts, happen even during the decades when larger good things, like addressing rich-poor issues, languish.
Not to say that I know how Jack Kelly stands on either of the above issues. I don't.
I just know that one of those 17 critical seats on Council is going to be filled for four years by either Jack Kelly or David Oh, so as long I can figure out who is likely to do better (and you can take that to mean the least harm), I'm going to vote for him.
Race is not for a pretty picture
Just a quick comment to be careful about voting for David Oh because he might make Council look prettier. Oh has questionable claim in being a vocal champion for the thousands of poor and struggling low income Asians in this city fighting for affordable housing, struggling in public schools, or fighting cops who suddenly feel like they need to be on immigration patrol rather than monitor their beats. Frankly, it's rather offensive to tout race just for the photo-op rather than the issues.
Go For What You Know!
Issues, race or not, he knows the right thing to say to win the votes of the people that really matter to him. These people might vote him into office. I wouldn't be surprised on that. His Rock star status is slowly rising ,also that big BILLBOARD off of I-95 isn't bad either ......
Junior Williams
juniorwililams007@earthlink.net
http://mycityscapephily.eponym.com/blog
Sam, Read your comment.
Sam,
Read your comment. Yes, I am one of those other Republican at Large candidates to which you referred. Since I have been campaigning hard for the past few months, I really need to enter the conversation!
Why not check me out before you decide who to support?(My web page is pmattern.com. I would also welcome the opportunity to be interviewed.) You just may conclude that I would be an excellent addition to City Council and that I have a real chance to win.
Best wishes, Pat Mattern
Thanks, Mike
Mike,
It was great to meet you and thank you for taking the time to discuss the issues with me.
As you stated, you and I differed and argued about a number of points but I was glad it was frank and honest. In the end, good people will have different ideas and that is not bad.
I do not want to go through your interview and make corrections. I appreciate your willingness to meet with me on such short notice, late at night, and then report on my responses to your questions.
I would, however, like to clarify the second answer since it is the reason why I wanted to be interviewed. I did not say the Democrats control the Republican Party. I said, Democrats historically decide which two Republican At-Large Council candidates win. Therefore, it is important that "good government", progressives vote for the Republican of their choice. Otherwise, their influence will not be felt. In the last Republican At-Large election, it is commonly understood that John Street and John Dougherty backed one Republican while Vince Fumo backed another. If "good government", progressives are going to have a voice in this city, it is important that they do not "sit out" this election. Be involved and make a difference.
To learn more about me and my issues, please visit www.DavidOh.org.
Take care,
David
Some perspective on the interview
Dan:
You hit the nail on the head in terms of my concerns. Nonetheless, I think shaking up Council is worth it enough to give him a vote. Besides, I actually think that given enough time to teach him about inclusionary zoning and internships that he might get on board. I mean his opponent's chief legislative objective is protecting stray dogs from being put to sleep. While I think that's nice and fuzzy, it's not high on my list of city priorities.
Tim:
The long convoluted discussion that I omitted was actually me talking, but to be fair, it's hard to educate someone in less than ten minutes about the virtues of inclusionary housing. I think that David was responding more from a concern about what PHA has done in the past and the impact of gentrification than it was from an understanding of what actually inclusionary housing legislation looks like.
The final statement wasn't about being Mayor. There is no doubt that he does want to accomplish things on Council and he was not just using this as a spring board to a higher office. My gut feeling is that his statement was in light of the number of politicians in this town who believe that they have life long rights to particular posts. Ambition is better than ossification.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
David: Corrections are
David:
Corrections are welcome. Thanks for coming.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Inclusionary Housing
Clarke and his buddies and Westrum are in the middle of this now in Brewerytown. Westrum has a plan for over 4 square blocks of housing ranging from market rate to low income properties. There is some neighborhood opposition and a small us/them attitude within the newer communities. Side note: Will the city do something if the low income units have the same health and safety quality issues the "market rate" units at the Square are having?
Integrate, don't separate! Make Brewerytown Great!
As a candiate, I try to make
As a candiate, I try to make myself available to as many people as I can. My positions and issues are on my website which includes articles and interviews written by professional journalists.
The statement about running for Mayor was "tongue in cheek" and made to humorously point out that anyone who runs for public office should want to do as much good as he or she can.
I believe there are two ways to be effective on City Council. One, is traditional. Pick your 2 or 3 main issues and politic your way into getting them passed...make friends and follow the political culture. The other is to push legislation and keep pushing, working, studying and convincing the voters. The point is not to be ineffective but rather to be effective in a way that will move our city forward.
I have spoken at various forums attended by many of your fellow Democrats and Progressives. Obviously, my positions and answers are good enough to earn me their support. Based on my education, achievements, and experience, my knowledge of the issues is not as shallow or simple minded as some would have you believe. I don't have much time to blog since I am running hard in the last few weeks of this very important election. Anyone who really wants to know about me and my campaign will be able to do so.
I campaign all across this city. You will have plenty of opportunities to meet me in person and hear for yourself where I stand on the issues and why.
Thanks,
David
I have spoken at various
Obvious to who? I don't mean that in a mean way. But, you had a Gar Joseph column which said you had the support of us- which was not true.
So, how about Liberty City? Philly for Change? Neighborhood Networks?
Oy
The issue is not exactly alleged wrongheadedness on 'inclusionary zoning/housing'. I mean, anyway, there are a range of valid positions to take on it in general and the two specific bills being floated here and now in particular.
But I hope to god that this:
is one hell of a paraphrase, particularly the first sentence, because I sure as hell do not want someone representing me who has anything in the ballpark of such a weirdly out of touch and dismissive position on the huge and serious affordable housing issues that affect not just the giant chunk of Philadelphia's population that lives in technical, recognized, poverty, but the whole big middle class right above that who is also struggling to find decent homes to rent or buy within the income they have.
Correction on Inclusionary Housing
I did not say that I am against inclusionary housing. I said I have serious concerns about it and I do not know enough about the practical impact of Darrell Clark's proposed legislation to say I would support it.
There are less and less public funds available for public housing. That means we have to use that money as efficiently and as productively as possible. We have a serious problem in this city when it comes to affordable housing for the poor.
PHA has done some good things but it has done so at the cost of housing for the poor. For example, demolishing a housing development (what was commonly refered to as a "project") and replacing it with single family units in a neighborhood setting is good. The problem is that the new development only houses 40% of the families who used to live there. The remaining families are displaced and dispursed throughout our city without the support structure (counseling, healthcare, education, job training, daycare, voter rights, etc.) that the development is supposed to offer.
Who gets to live in the nice new homes? Who gets to live in "inclusionary housing"? In this city, we have needy families that have been on a waiting list for 5-6 years.
I would much rather see the money be used to rebuild and revitalize exisiting neighborhoods which are poor. I believe our dollars will do the most good for the most people by strengthening neighborhoods and communities through such programs as "clean and green", after school programs, literacy classes, recreation centers, job training, crime prevention, rehabilitation of homes and revitalization of small business districts.
The developers should pay their fair share. The money should be used in the public interest to deal with our most pressing problems as concerns housing. Inclusionary housing, which is the right solution in many instances, also means building new homes for less people in need, than using that money to help sustain families in exisitng neighborhoods. That is the wrong solution in many instances and not an overall policy that I think we should follow at this time.
The other thing I said was that we should not assume poor peole want to live with rich people. Nor should we assume that putting poor people in rich areas will make them better people. That is what rich people think. Its very condesending and disrespectful. Being poor means you are poor. It does not mean you lack morals, judgement, self-respect, values, etc. Empowering people and respecting them is what I want to do through programs that will assist them in building the kind of community they want to live in. Inclusionary housing is a zoning concept in many senses that creates an evironment based on the idea that the poor will learn how to be better people if we place them in proximity with educated, working people and the wealthy.
I am very much in favor of mixed neighborhoods. That is different. That is not "gentrification" and it is not like "inclusionary housing". The housing stock is the same and the neighborhood is intact. The wealthy, the educated, and the job holder comes to live among the people who already occupy that neighborhood. They live together, share the resources and adopt the general lifestyle of the community while adding their own.
That's a brief clarification. The issue is deep and complex. I respect differences in opinion, that's why I engage in discussion. And, as Mike said, maybe I will learn a few things and adjust my thinking. I am always open to improving and being better.
Thanks,
David
In contrast to my first response
to your shorter/paraphrased response on housing, I think that these longer comments reflect a sensitive and, frankly, progressive (more so than the federal housing policy you implicitly criticize) position.
Though, while I do think you have a sensitive reading of the problems, these problems you identify are the starting point for thinking about housing issues here. I would like to hear from you, as candidate, what you think the city is in a position to do.
Inclusionary zoning is one response to the cold reality that federal subsidy dollars have dropped and someone has to incentivize or directly subsidize affordable housing construction, because the market will not do it if left alone (see, condos to the exclusion of other forms of development). But, like you say, the issues are complex and one of the two bills (Clarke's, which is not the only one) doesn't address housing for the vast majority of city residents towards the poorer end of the spectrum, but rather aims toward the high middle. These nuances and potential representatives' positions on them, are going to be crucial as we head into a new mayoral administration under which progressive movement could well happen in these areas.
For reference, though, I think that there's a bit of a straw man thing to some of the professed concerns about an inclusionary zoning ordinance. By the nature of it, these ordinances intend to trade incentives. Everyone involved on the advocacy side wants effective incentives, because there's no point in an ordinance like that if it stifles development. Less development, less affordable units. And the other way around.
Another broad area where a potential representative could be posing solutions to the problems you identify is city governmental procedure relating to development (councilmanic privilege, management and transfer of un- and under-used city-owned land, including reforming the structure of related land/housing agencies and creating an overarching land bank). Developers have spoken extensively about reforms in bureaucratic process that would make affordable housing more financially feasible for them to develop.
Separating Two Issues
I think there's a confusion or conflation here about inclusionary zoning -- and I use that term rather than inclusionary housing since the latter seems to suggest replacing high-density public housing with a low-density mix of public and market-rate housing. To me, at least, inclusionary zoning isn't about public housing at all, but the private development market.
Here's a definition of inclusionary zoning, from Wikipedia:
Inclusionary zoning generally isn't much like public assistance at all. Nor does it usually impose a financial burden or constriction on individual developers, except for very large, neighborhood-sized projects. What it does do is guarantee a certain residential density and variety, for example, by setting aside some multi-family and rental properties in a neighborhood that might otherwise be converted to all high-cost single-family houses. That doesn't just benefit blue-collar workers, but a full range of the workforce, including students, artists, singles, teachers, policeman, firefighters, janitors, waitstaff, bus drivers. Central Philadelphia, historically, hasn't had a shortage of middle-class and rental housing. But in the last few years, rising prices are starting to reverse that trend, pushing Center City and the area surrounding it into a more homogeneous, upper-middle-class enclave. This hasn't necessarily been the result of a concerted, concentrated, or intentional effort by the developers or the city to change the demographics of these neighborhoods. It's just that without smart zoning to hold it back, the economic incentives for individual developers all tip in the direction of the high end of the market. (This can create problems for those developers, too, when a rush of supply outstrips demand -- look at what's happened to Toll Brothers in the past year.)
In my opinion, the "moralizing" argument that David Oh refers to on the effect of rich people on poor people may be condescending and disrespectful, but it's also a total straw man. Inclusionary zoning isn't about reforming the poor -- it's about guaranteeing workers at every end of the spectrum access to the jobs and resources of successful neighorhoods, and likewise maintaining employers' access to that workforce. It's also about maintaining residential density and variety, which is good for both the economic and social health of the city. Also, it keeps local politics, in the sense of the life of the polis, more integrated and more democratic. We're pretty big on that around here.
--Tim
Right, two things
I understood the moralizing part to refer to the HOPE VI remaking of (what's left of) government public housing into a combination of mixed-income lower-density development and dispersed Section 8 rentals. Both of these to some extent are rooted in a well-meaning (though arguably 'condescending,' maybe, I guess) idea that poor people will do better when mixed in with the more well-off. This is very much in line with a chain of thought stemming from William Julius Wilson's critique of the effects of 'social isolation' in the ghetto on the ability of black urban residents in those areas to access capital or social mobility, as people in poor urban neighborhoods were literally cut off from the networks through which capital and social mobility flow. It also comes from the very visible failures of an older model of public housing that effectively (though architecture, zoning, financing, and other factors) highly concentrated the physical/geographic location of poor people.
All these things are pretty widely understood (I know you understand them) at this point and, like I was saying, underlay the last big round of federal-level housing policy reform.
I took David Oh's comment about the 'condescending' thing to reference this whole reigning theory. Though the desire to deconcentrate poverty is good, he's right that there are real questions about the low level of housing production (since we are doing now lower density) and the amount of it being set aside for a relatively higher income bracket (given the number of poorer people still on the PHA waiting list). There are also questions about whether these changes are 'working'--Section 8 housing, for example, still seems to be concentrated in poor areas where landlords have few enough choices for market-rate tenants that they are willing to trade extra paperwork for steady government-subsidized rent.
All of this is mostly beside the point when talking about municipal-level inclusionary zoning ordinances. The only real connection is the debate over whether we structure the ordinance to force the affordable housing to be built on-site (creating a mixed income development where we otherwise would have a more homogeneous one) or permitting development credits so affordable units can be built elsewhere (lower-income and thus lower-land-cost areas).
I really really think the incentive side of the proposed inclusionary zoning ordinances is crucial, because if they are to even chip away at the truly-affordable housing shortage we need to encourage more building here in general, at all income levels. I don't want to be negative, but this would have meant more six years ago, before the condo market got totally glutted.
As a genuine suggestion
I'd recommend that David Oh look at the alternative to Clarke's bill that has been proposed, since it anticipates several of his concerns and he does not sound familiar with it when he says:
The alternative to Clarke's bill, that drafted by the Philadelphia Campaign for Housing Justice, in consultation with national experts on such ordinances, ensures that housing is truly affordable (as opposed to Clarke's bill, which aims for the high middle class). And it would fund alongside the construction of new permanently affordable units:
These are goals that seem to echo Mr. Oh's concern with rehabilitating the housing stock. Of course, the inclusionary zoning ordinances are, at some level, risdistributive. If Mr. Oh, as a Republican or otherwise, is uncomfortable with that at an ideological level, it would honestly be great to hear a candidate propose alternative funding mechanisms to get some of this (like rehabilitation of under-used housing stock) achieved.
Jen and Short: Thanks for
Jen and Short:
Thanks for your contributions. It's inherently difficult to capture an hour interview in a few blurbs. What was clear to me is that David is extremely amicable and that with a little work, indeed, he might actually introduce an improved housing ordinance than Clarke has on the table at the moment.
I also would personally like someone on Council who could focus on some big projects like that High Speed line.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
Credit for engaging on the issues
David,
You get credit for engaging the issues. I think most people value that in their prospective candidates.
In addition, I do want to point out that we may have been approaching the internship question from different perspectives. You may have been thinking of small mom and pop stores. It is fair to object to expecting small enterprises to be able to productively use internships.
Campaign hard for your last three weeks and hopefully you will have the opportunity to prove your worth on Council. Your commitment to looking at some issues creatively--although I didn't touch on it directly in the transcript--is one that Council could use.
--Mike
Weeds in the Sidewalk
David you say "There is some
David you say "There is some evidence that Street and others tactically approved Jack Kelly’s candidacy." Please prove that. I would really like to see you post the evidence on that.
Republican Ward Leader 33rd Ward
Thanks, Jennifer...I will.
I will take a look at the alternative bill proposed by Philadelphia Campaign for Housing Justice. Thank you for the suggestion. I think it will be very helpful.
Best regards,
David
Matt, is that a real question?
Matt,
Is that a real question?
I don't think Jack Kelly is ashamed of his relationship with Johhny Doc and John Street. Do you think he is? I don't have a problem with Democrats helping Republicans. Do you?
You were paid $3,700 by a Democratic Councilman to influence the outcome of the Democratic Primary in the 7th District, even though you are a Republican Ward Leader. I can't imagine that you are a personal friend of Coumcilman Savage, but maybe you are. Did you do it for friendship, principle, good government, or simply for the money? What did you do with the money? Doesn't seem like you spent it very well. Perhaps you should give him a refund.
I am a Republican and I am seeking the support of Republicans, Democrats, Independents and Third Party voters. I have a lot of Democrats supporting me. I am proud of the people who support. I'm sure all the candidates feel the same. Don't you?
Any more questions? Ask me in person. We see each other plenty. Besides...I'll be in your ward campaigning.
-David
Debate jumps to the Inquirer
The Inquirer's "Heard in the Hall" column this morning picks up the debate here starting with the quote about the Philadelphia Republican Party making inside deals with the Democrats. Of course that is what has been happening for some time. As I see it the minority party in any situaiton has an obligation to the citizenry to mount serious challenges in any and all races to the status quo. We would have the best govenment if those races were won 51-49% and all elected officials were aware that someone was nipping at their heels. The Democrats agree to never run anyone who could win in the few areas the Republicans control and the Republicans do the same. They also agree to share the largess when needed in proportion. I call that top-down totalitarian govenment, and for that reason I have been a long-term Indepedent and running as such for the 8th District Council Seat.
www.foster4reform
Jim Foster
Independent for District 8